Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.

Get a Professional Answer

Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.Ask follow up questions if you need to.

100% Satisfaction Guarantee

Rate the answer you receive.

Ask AlexiaEsq. Your Own Question

AlexiaEsq., Managing Attorney

Category: Criminal Law

Satisfied Customers: 13555

Experience: 19+ Years of Legal Practice in Criminal Law.

10805288

Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...

AlexiaEsq. is online now

Sorry, didnt mean to go beyond the limit.
There has to be

This answer was rated:

★★★★★

Sorry, didn't mean to go beyond the limit.There has to be more to my equal justice argument because if there wasn’t, the prosecutor would surely have put this lady on the witnesses stand. This lady was his star witness. My case was reset 4 times and he drug this lady up to the courthouse every time. But after let him know that I identified her in the picture as braking the same law (he was prosecuting me for) he dropped her like a rock! Why'd he do it? He had to be worried about breaking some rule or something?

Can I cite him with violating "d" in this statute?

SUBCHAPTER D. PROCEDURES IN MUNICIPAL COURT Art. 45.201. MUNICIPAL PROSECUTIONS. (a) All prosecutions in a municipal court shall be conducted by the city attorney of the municipality or by a deputy city attorney. (b) The county attorney of the county in which the municipality is situated may, if the county attorney so desires, also represent the state in such prosecutions. In such cases, the county attorney is not entitled to receive any fees or other compensation for those services. (c) With the consent of the county attorney, appeals from municipal court to a county court, county court at law, or any appellate court may be prosecuted by the city attorney or a deputy city attorney. (d) It is the primary duty of a municipal prosecutor not to convict, but to see that justice is done.

There has to be more to my equal justice argument because if there wasn’t, the prosecutor would surely have put this lady on the witnesses stand. No, trial strategy has no implication necessarily.

This lady was his star witness. But he didn't need her to win, so apparently there was a different star witness or other evidence sufficed. And, given the she wasn't charged, yes, that could be part of why he didn't want her on the stand, because then you or your attorney could say, you "did it" and weren't charged, why, did you give something in return for not being being charged? And she may say, "yes, if I told them what happened, they promised me immunity." And then you would say (or your attorney), So you had incentive to point out Mr. X, is that right?... Not matter what response she gives, the judge or jury now knows that her pointing to you that led law enforcement to charge you, was not without personal motive. And that CAN go towards their view of her credibility. Doesn't mean she is lying, but they could decide it is not very credible, depending on the rest of the case. The question also arises, why YOU didn't call her as a witness for your own case - either because you thought she confirm your violative act or because you didn't realize you could.

My case was reset 4 times and he drug this lady up to the courthouse every time. Yes, that is a tactic to keep you on your toes. She was probably on the witness list as a possible witness, and depending on how the case is going, is whether you allow a witness to testify if their testimony is fraught with dangers in addition to the facts she will testify to.

But after let him know that I identified her in the picture as braking the same law (he was prosecuting me for) he dropped her like a rock! Why'd he do it? Because of those "added" dangers I mention above, most likely. We gather witnesses and when we learn things of them that weakens their testimony credibility, we balance the gain we may get against the damage it may do.

He had to be worried about breaking some rule or something? No. That is not necessarily true at all. Not all possible witnesses make top testifying witnesses. Both defense and prosecution only try to put on those that are needed to win, and do a weighing game of pros and cons to a particular witness.

Can I cite him with violating "d" in this statute? Not without proof.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROCEDURES IN MUNICIPAL COURT Art. 45.201. MUNICIPAL PROSECUTIONS. (a) All prosecutions in a municipal court shall be conducted by the city attorney of the municipality or by a deputy city attorney. (b) The county attorney of the county in which the municipality is situated may, if the county attorney so desires, also represent the state in such prosecutions. In such cases, the county attorney is not entitled to receive any fees or other compensation for those services. (c) With the consent of the county attorney, appeals from municipal court to a county court, county court at law, or any appellate court may be prosecuted by the city attorney or a deputy city attorney. (d) It is the primary duty of a municipal prosecutor not to convict, but to see that justice is done.So long as he thinks you are guilty of a charge, it is his duty to see justice done on that charge. If he didn't think he had near enough evidence to convict and didn't think you guilty, then I think he'd be violating (d).

Sorry is it not so clear - I think you'd need more than the fact that they didn't call her as a witness. Something to show some wrong. For instance, did they have evidence not shared with you, that was exculpatory? That could be a violation.